|
South End |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
King James Version This article will consist of a relatively brief critique of one version of the English Bible – the King James Version (KJV). It is not our intent to cover the technical detail of the more comprehensive books already available on the subject. We will just point out its strengths and weaknesses, using the original text as the basis of what we hope will be judiciousness and objectivity. King James came to the throne of England in 1603. He invited fifty-four scholars to participate in the revision process that would come to be known as the King James Version. The King James Version of the Bible was issued in 1611. The King James Version was not the first English translation. It was preceded by Tyndale’s Version (1526, 1534), the Coverdale Bible (1535), Matthews Bible (1537), the Great Bible (1539), the Geneva Bible (1560), and the Bishop’s Bible (1568). The Old Testament committees used the Masoretic Hebrew text and the New Testament was translated from the Textus Receptus or Received Text. It is estimated that ninety percent of the King James New Testament is basically the vocabulary and style of William Tyndale. Perhaps the greatest weaknesses of the King James Version are its archaic Elizabethan English, the textual base from which the New Testament was translated (that is, the use of the Textus Receptus), and many of the exegetical choices its translators made. In the Old Testament text of the King James Version we read, “But there went up a mist from the earth” (Genesis 2:6). The word they render “mist” means stream or flow. It refers to underground streams that came to the surface or a substantial river. Genesis 12:19 says, “I might have taken her to me to wife.” The Hebrew simply says, “I took her.” In Deuteronomy 33:17 we read of the “unicorn.” The text says “wild ox.” In Isaiah 13:21 we read of “satyrs” instead of “wild goats.” In Psalm 44:19 we see “dragons” when the text says “jackals.” In Jeremiah 8:17 the King James Version has “cockatrices” but the text says “vipers.” In the New Testament text of the King James Version we read, “Behold, a virgin shall be with child” (Matthew 1:23) but the Greek text from which it was translated says “the virgin.” The article “the” is used in the Textus Receptus but it does not appear before “virgin” in the King James Version in the text cited. We read that “the Lord added to the church such as should be saved” (Acts 2:47). “Such as should be saved” is not in the Textus Receptus from which the King James Version is translated. It says “those who were being saved.” In Hebrews 6:6 we read, “If they shall fall away.” The Textus Receptus reads “having fallen away.” F. W. Farrar says the King James Version’s “rendering ‘if they shall fall away,’ is one of the most erroneous translations in the A. V.” (Cambridge Greek Testament For Schools And Colleges, The Epistle To The Hebrews, p. 83). In 1 Timothy 3:1 the King James Version speaks of "...the office of a bishop." Two things are immediately apparent in the Greek text: (1) There is no corresponding word for "office." (2) The word episkopos doesn't mean "bishop," it means "overseer." Why does the King James Version have the word "bishop?" It reflects the religious views of those 17th century Church of England translators. This is one of the places where the NIV accurately reflects the sense of the original very nicely, "If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer." There are many archaic words in the King James Version. We read of thee, thy, thine, thou, ye, etc. Many of the verbs have the old endings “eth” and “est.” We do not speak with such forms in modern English. In Exodus 17:13 we read, “Joshua discomfited Amalek.” More recent versions say Joshua defeated Amalek. In 1 Thessalonians 4:15 we read, “…we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.” The word “prevent” should be “precede.” The cases of archaic language could be multiplied many times over. Why make the Lord’s words more difficult to understand than God intends? Correcting mistranslations and updating the English does no injustice to the scriptures. The original languages of scripture were the vernacular of the day. The King James Version contains translation inconsistencies. “Devil” is used for Satan, the prince of demons, and the demons themselves. “Hell” is used for both Hades, the place of the dead, and Gehenna, the place of punishment. It translates the same Greek word two different ways in the same text: “And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal” (Matthew 25:46). The words “everlasting” and “eternal” translate the same Greek word. Is this intended to imply that the King James Version is a poor translation? No. It has strengths. In general it attempts to reflect a modified-literal approach to translation. It is generally faithful to the text available to the translators at that time. It was produced during the time of Shakespearean literature; it has excellent poetic beauty and cadence if you like old English. Since the publication of the King James Version the English language has changed, thousands of biblical manuscripts have been discovered, and much has been learned about Hebrew and Greek grammar, lexicography, and linguistics in general in the last 400 years. Biblical scholarship has moved on. The King James Version is deficient in some areas. It is not the last word in Bible translations. A
person would do well to use more than one translation of the scriptures. Study
from and compare as many as you can. When you lock yourself in to using only one
version, you also lock yourself in to the weaknesses of that one version. Learn
to note the differences between the various versions and attempt to discover the
reason for the variations. |
The contents of this site are Copyright of South End Church of Christ except where noted. © 2009 all rights reserved.
All content may be reproduced as long as content is not edited.